4 thoughts on “EPA Dubious of Bypass Need”

  1. Ahhh…the famous beurocrat government double bind. Lets make sure we make more work for us all and prove we need more money.

    And while we are at it, lets spend some time and money with more stoplights and some synching issues.

    Those Liberals in Cville must LUV us!!

    Me, I miss the trees in the 29 median.

  2. Severely misleading “summary” of EPA’s letter. An evaluation of alternatives does not equate to “prove you need” the bypass; it means prove why your selected design is the appropriate design in relation to potentially impacted natural resources. It means that you need to consider various ways/designs of achieving your goal and weighing the impacts of the various designs so that you can provide the necessary evidence to illustrate why the selected alternative is the appropriate design. Really, they’ll likely be able to continue with the current design but would need to articulate why it is the best alternative.

  3. OK, now see if you can turn that into a 10–12 word summary. Bonus challenge: Do it in the precious few minutes available between taking an 11-month-old out of the bath and getting dinner started.

  4. Stop, in the name of “Sustainability!” Happy Thanksgetting….. err, giving.

    PS: Apologies Waldo, I have to forfeit the bonus challenge. Family was out of here on the moment after the stroke of Black Friday.

Comments are closed.